Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
BioMed Research International
Volume 2015, Article ID 284142, 6 pages
Research Article

The AirView Study: Comparison of Intubation Conditions and Ease between the Airtraq-AirView and the King Vision

Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Vaud (CHUV), Rue du Bugnon, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 8 December 2014; Accepted 10 February 2015

Academic Editor: Kamil Toker

Copyright © 2015 Patrick Schoettker and Jocelyn Corniche. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


We conducted a study assessing the quality and speed of intubation between the Airtraq with its new iPhone AirView app and the King Vision in a manikin. The primary endpoint was reduction of time needed for intubation. Secondary endpoints included times necessary for intubation. 30 anaesthetists randomly performed 3 intubations with each device on a difficult airway manikin. Participants had a professional experience of 12 years: 60.0% possessed the Airtraq in their hospital, 46.7% the King Vision, and 20.0% both. Median time difference [IQR] to identify glottis (1.1 [−1.3; 3.9] ), for tube insertion (2.1 [−2.6; 9.4] ) and lung ventilation (2.8 [−2.4; 11.5] ), was shorter with the Airtraq-AirView. Median time for glottis visualization was significantly shorter with the Airtraq-AirView (5.3 [4.0; 8.4] versus 6.4 [4.6; 9.1]). Cormack Lehane before intubation was better with the King Vision (); no difference was noted during intubation, for subjective device insertion or quality of epiglottis visualisation. Assessment of tracheal tube insertion was better with the Airtraq-AirView. The Airtraq-AirView allows faster identification of the landmarks and intubation in a difficult airway manikin, while clinical relevance remains to be studied. Anaesthetists assessed the intubation better with the Airtraq-AirView.